Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 06 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 6, 2000


Contents


Petition

The Convener:

We move to item 4, which is petition PE116 from James Strang. This is the final item on the agenda. Members have a note from the clerk, which explains the issues. The petition is general and relates to ensuring that aspects of Scots law are compatible with the obligations of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The specific argument that is made in the petition relates to the Parole Board for Scotland, members of which are appointed by the Scottish Executive. The petition calls for the establishment of a forum

"for the purposes of investigating and reviewing any potential conflicts between Scots law and procedure and the Convention rights."

In my view, that is to do with development of a human rights commission, which—as members know—is under review. I would not therefore expect the committee to spend too much time on that aspect.

That leaves the issue of the Parole Board for Scotland, the detail of which is outlined. The Public Petitions Committee sought views from the minister and some indications have been obtained. The letter that was received by the convener of the Public Petitions Committee from the minister suggests that the Executive is still considering various matters.

We have heard that there is strong likelihood of an imminent ECHR compliance bill. We do not know the precise nature of that bill, but there are a number of ECHR issues to be addressed. The minister did not make any comment on the recall of prisoners to custody and indicates that no ECHR weakness has so far been identified in the existing arrangements for the appointment of members to the Parole Board for Scotland.

We must decide what to do. The clerk has laid out options for the committee. We can go back to the minister with our reaction to his views and press him further. We could seek the views of other relevant organisations. We could wrap the issues that are raised by the petition into other issues that the committee will consider, including the report of the MacLean committee, which mentions recommendations on consideration of release, release powers and the role of ministers. We may also decide that noting the petition would be sufficient and take no further action.

I invite the views of members on the petition and on what they consider to be the appropriate way forward for the committee. I am disinclined to take the view that we should merely note the petition and not consider it further. Perhaps that would not be appropriate.

Gordon Jackson:

It might be possible not only to note the petition but, in effect, to do nothing. I am for doing nothing. That might mean noting it; I do not see any point in spending time on the matter. The petitioner raises three issues, one of which is the appointment of the Parole Board. I cannot see any ECHR problem in that, but if there is, it can be examined in the review of the ECHR, on which the Government is about to introduce a bill.

The second issue, which I thought was more interesting, was the minister's right to recall people to prison. I understand that that is going through the courts—Lady Paton has done that. That challenge to the ECHR is already active and it is too late to change the law to meet it.

The third point is that a committee should be set up to consider all questions of ECHR compliance. As the convener said, that is what we are doing.

Yes—as would a human rights commission.

Gordon Jackson:

Therefore, all three issues are exhausted. My fear is that if we do not merely note a petition such as this, where does it end? As you know, dozens of matters are potentially ECHR non-compliant—that will be examined when there is an ECHR bill. If someone says, "Here is a petition about the Parole Board" and we conduct an inquiry on it, next week we might get a petition on—

Hold on. I am not suggesting that we should conduct an inquiry.

I am exaggerating a little.

Yes, you are.

Gordon Jackson:

If we decided not to note the petition but to deal with it, and the following week a petition on planning was submitted—which would probably be more legitimate—would we examine that? We have many things to do and the Executive is reviewing the matter, so we should not spend time examining individual suggestions such as this.

Pauline McNeill:

It is in the spirit of parliamentary procedures that, through the Public Petitions Committee, people can face the Parliament with an issue such as this. That is great—he deserves a reply.

However, it is a legal matter and Gordon Jackson is right in the sense that when we are asked to consider an issue that is a matter for the courts, we must say that. We must not be tempted to examine it. The petitioner should be told what the convener has said, which is that his essential point about examining possible conflicts between the ECHR and Scots law is for the human rights commission. We should not examine the other issues in the petition. It is not for the committee to determine whether there is a contravention of the ECHR—that is a matter for a court.

Kate MacLean:

It would be interesting to find out whether the petitioner is happy with the response because, as well as sending the petition on to this committee, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee passed it on to Jim Wallace, who has responded. It would be interesting to know whether the petitioner is happy with that response.

I think—unlike Gordon Jackson—that if we are to do nothing about the petition, we should say that we are going to note it, rather than not note it and not do anything about it.

I agree.

Mr Strang might be happy with the response from Mr Wallace. We should contact Mr Strang and pass on a copy of the response, if John McAllion has not already done so.

Phil Gallie:

The petitioner has raised a valid issue under the system that has been set up by the Scottish Parliament. We would do the petition an injustice by merely noting it, but I accept that, as Gordon Jackson said, we cannot deal with every issue. We know that the Crown Office and the Executive are examining the matter. The committee could state that we feel that the guy has made a valid point. We could pass that to the Crown Office or the Executive and ask, "Will you consider that?" That would be a positive action, which would be fine.

The Convener:

Two of the three points—the active court situation and the human rights commission—can be responded to in the way that we have discussed this morning. On the more general point about the membership of the Parole Board, I would like to get a view from the Scottish Human Rights Centre about its immediate response to that; we can do that by letter. When we receive a response to that, we should dispatch it to the Crown Office on the basis that Phil Gallie suggested. I do not want us to dismiss matters out of hand when the petition is not frivolous.

Gordon Jackson:

To avoid doubt, I think that the point that the man has made is valid. I am not saying that the petition is frivolous. I quite fancied the second point about recall as an ECHR point—although it seems that the courts have said that it is not. It is a valid point, but my difficulty is about what we can do about it when so much stuff is being done elsewhere.

The Convener:

That will always be an issue with petitions. We will ask Professor Alan Miller for a response on the general point. We will wait and see what that response is.

I remind members that the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is on Monday 11 September at 2pm. It will be in committee room 8 of Glasgow city chambers and not the Lighthouse, which is what members might have in their diaries because that was where we were going originally.

We will take evidence on the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill from Adam Ingram MSP and from Professor Rennie of the Law Society of Scotland—although I am not sure that strictly speaking he is Professor Rennie of the Law Society of Scotland. The committee will also take evidence from Clive Fairweather, HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland.

We have a busy agenda next Monday afternoon and I look forward to seeing members in Glasgow.

Meeting closed at 12:07.